Senator Margetts asked the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 2 September 1997:

With reference to the environmental approval of the Jabiluka mine on the edge of Kakadu National Park:

(1) (a) Has the Minister received a copy of correspondence between the World Heritage Committee in Paris and a coalition of environment groups, not limited to but including Friends of the Earth International, Northern Territory Environment Centre, Wilderness Society, the South Australian Conservation Councils, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and the National Union of Students, requesting that Kakadu National Park be placed on the `World Heritage in Danger' list; and (b) what action will the Minister take in response to this correspondence.

(2) (a) Did the 1988 report of the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts on the Kakadu Region state that:`. . . A policy which permitted mining in Kakadu Stage 1 or 2 would almost certainly be seen as incompatible with this obligation and Australia's reputation as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention would undoubtedly suffer if mining were to take place'; (b) what does the Government perceive as Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention and their implications for the management of Kakadu; (c) does the Government believe that either the operations of the expanded Ranger mine or new Jabiluka mine will infringe on any of those obligations; (d) does the Government believe it can meet its World Heritage obligations with the operation of the Jabiluka mine; and (e) what scientific data supports any conclusions that the Jabiluka mine will not affect the World Heritage standing of the region nor Australia's obligations under the treaty of the same name.

(3) (a) Does the Government argue that, because the operations of Jabiluka and Ranger are technically outside the arbitrary boundaries of the park, mining operations and waste therefore do not have any environmental impact on the park; and (b) given that ecosystems do not function within human-made arbitrary boundaries based on political decisions, how can any such proposition be argued.

(4) (a) Does the Minister and the Government accept that uranium mining and World Heritage values are incompatible in general; if so, what will the Minister do regarding the World Heritage listing of Kakadu and its obligations under the treaty; if not, why not; and (b) does the Minister and the Government accept that uranium mining at Jabiluka and World Heritage values are incompatible; if so, what will the Minister do regarding the World Heritage listing of Kakadu and its obligations under the treaty; if not, how can the Government ignore the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Jabiluka which said, `. . . the general incompatibility of a mine with World Heritage values has been an issue no matter what level of impact can be expected from Energy Resources of Australia Ltd's development'.

(5) (a) Did the World Conservation Congress of the International Union for Conservation of Nature in October 1996 pass a resolution that included the following: `. . . urges the Government of Australia to prevent the development of Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium mines should it be shown that such mining would threaten the park's World Heritage values; (b) will the Government abide by this request if this link is shown; if not, why not; and (c) if the Government contends that it has not been shown, is the Government prepared to take action to refuse the approval for the mine if baseline data shows that a detrimental environmental impact may be caused by uranium mining at Jabiluka or Ranger.

(6) Will the Government fund an independent study into the effects of uranium mining at Kakadu including a longitudinal study of the effects of existing Ranger operations; if not, why not.

Senator Hill —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows

(1) (a) Yes.

(b) Australia will be reporting to the World Heritage Committee that there is no evidence to support such a request. The Government believes there is no basis for any suggestion that Kakadu National Park should be on the `World Heritage in Danger' list.

(2) (a) Yes, in paragraph 61. I understand however, that this paragraph refers to mining within the boundaries of Kakadu National Park. Paragraph 49 of the same Standing Committee Report outlines that:

`The Committee does not make any recommendations as to whether permission should be given for the Jabiluka and Koongarra mines to go into production'.

(b) The World Heritage Convention obliges a State Party to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory. For Kakadu National Park, the Government will continue to meet these obligations.

(c) No.

(d) Yes.

(e) The potential impacts of the Jabiluka proposal on the environment can reasonably be extrapolated from the experience of the nearby Ranger uranium mine. The Supervising Scientist has determined that no activity or incidents occurring at the Ranger mine have resulted in a significant environmental impact outside the immediate mine area. Investigations by the Supervising Scientist of the Magela Creek system since before mining began have detected no significant effects on the environment. Results of these investigations have been documented in annual reports since 1978 and also numerous inquiries into uranium mining or related matters. Similarly, monitoring of water chemistry by ERA and the NT government has shown that water quality in Magela Creek has remained within applicable standards. Results are routinely made available and assessed by the Supervising Scientist.

The draft environmental impact statement (EIS), the supplement to the draft EIS and the assessment report produced by Environment Australia of the Jabiluka proposal provide overviews of the available evidence of the likely environmental impacts of the Jabiluka mine. If, as expected, further baseline work confirms previous findings, and assuming the Jabiluka mine proceeds under the recommended conditions, the evidence supports the conclusion that the mine will not affect the natural and cultural attributes that provide the region with its World Heritage standing.

(3) (a) and (b) The Government considers that the operations of the Ranger mine do not have an impact on the World Heritage values of the Park. Regarding the proposed Jabiluka mine I advised the Minister for Resources and Energy, in correspondence of 22 August 1997, that on the evidence available there appears to be no environmental issue which should prevent the proposed Jabiluka mine from proceeding provided the project is subject to stringent conditions relating to the biophysical, cultural and social significance of the environment associated with the mine. In developing my recommendations to the Minister I was particularly mindful of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention and the need to fully protect World Heritage values.

(4) (a) I, and the Government, consider that with proper management, uranium mining outside the boundaries of Kakadu National Park will not have an adverse impact on the World Heritage values of the Park.

(b) No. As indicated above, if further baseline work confirms previous findings (as expected), and assuming the Jabiluka mine proceeds under the recommended conditions, the proposed Jabiluka mine will not affect the natural and cultural attributes that provide the region with its World Heritage standing. I understand that your quotation from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement may be incorrect. On page 9, the Draft states:

`The general compatibility of a mine with World Heritage values has been an issue no matter what level of impact can be expected from ERA's small scale development proposal.'

(5) (a) I am advised that it did.

(b) and (c) Consistent with the Government's obligations as a State Party to the World Heritage Convention, the Government has ensured and will continue to ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection and conservation of World Heritage values. Proposals which are not consistent with our obligations under the Convention will not be permitted.

(6) No. The Supervising Scientist was established by the Commonwealth Government with the express purpose of filling a "watchdog" role in relation to uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region. The level of environmental protection that has been achieved at Ranger owes much to the intense level of supervision of Environmental Requirements, development and promotion of rigorous environmental standards, regular environmental performance reviews (EPRs), assessment of technical aspects of operations, and research into key environmental issues at mines, including Ranger water management, rehabilitation and final tailings disposal.

The Supervising Scientist will continue to ensure a high level of environmental performance at Ranger through its research, supervision and assessment programs. A five year program has been established which outlines the focus of EPRs to be carried out every six months. These EPRs assess the environmental performance of the mine operations against desired outcomes and the Commonwealth's Environmental Requirements. The process is completely transparent and accountability is achieved by reporting to a community based committee following the conclusion of each EPR.

The same level of commitment will apply to any mine operating in the Alligator Rivers Region. The body of expertise and experience within the Supervising Scientist Group will continue to reassure the community that potential impacts are objectively and independently assessed, reported and managed.